Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's greatest mistake in WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Charles C View Post
    That is false. The reason was that the UK bombed Berlin, to which Hitler responded by focusing almost all his bombing on London; a big mistake. The RAF were at its knees at one point.
    Nonsense. The RAF was never "at its knees". It never came anywhere near being so.
    "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
    Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Charles C View Post
      But of course if an invasion of Britain was to be carried out, then it would've involved all of it, not just England. Leaving behind Ireland, Scotland & Wales would be giving away safe havens for any resistance forces.
      Have you forgotten Hadrian's Wall? It worked for centuries...

      Regards
      Scott Fraser
      Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

      A contentedly cantankerous old fart

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
        Hitler's redirecting the Luftwaffe against cities like London and Coventry was to demoralize the British public, the firebombing of Dresden was in 1945. Hamburg and Dresden were legitimate military targets
        It was retaliation for the bombing of Berlin.

        As for Dresden being a legitimate military target that's highly questionable.

        You cannot compare, the allied bombings were on a completely different level, so when you call the German bombings of London terror bombing it rings hollow when compared to the Allied bombings of Dresden and Hamburg.

        I'm interested in your take on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I would be interested in hearing your rationale for nuking two major cities full of civilians, were they also legitimate military targets?

        The truth is Churchill wanted to annihilate Dresden and Hamburg, the American bomber command first refused to, they didn’t want to partake.

        Added:

        At that time of these bombings things were not known, the numbers weren't in. You reason from a perspective of already having the numbers, from already having the facts at hand.
        You're reasoning for retaliation as some kind of pay back for what happened to Jews and slavs therefore holds no water, and that the German civilian population deserved it…it all becomes severely flawed.
        As I said, you're looking back with the facts at hand then you use that as a means of rationalising these bombings.

        That would only have worked had they known what we know today, and guess what: they didn't.

        It was all about destroying two cities for the sake of destroying them, it was not done as some payback for what happened to Jews and slavs, and this you can argue till the cows come home, Desiree Clary.
        Last edited by walle; 09 Apr 13, 18:20.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by walle View Post
          As for Dresden being a legitimate military target that's highly questionable.
          Bullshit. Dresden was a legitimate target. This document, published for the USAF internal consumption goes into detail why Dresden was bombed.
          http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media...110208-030.pdf

          But for the record there is NO moral equivalency between the Allies and Nazi Germany. The Allies might have dirt on its hands, but Nazi Germany is buried to the neck in fecal matter of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

          Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been debated endlessly here. For Hiroshima the city was HQ for the IJA 2nd Army and THAT ALONE makes it a legitimate target. Did you know the Japanese refused to surrender after the 1st A-bomb. The Soviets declared war and invaded Manchuria and the Japanese still didn't surrender. Nagasaki was bombed and the Cabinet still SPLIT ON SURRENDER. It took the personal intervention of the Japanese Emperor to end the war. But I am not seeing any tears for Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry and London, et. al. Why all the tears for the bad guys?
          Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

          "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

          What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
            snip
            No one's comparing warcrimes. Relax. As for crimes against humanity that is what war is. I let you think about that one for a while.

            My point was that the bombings of London was retaliation for the bombings of Berlin. And that is a fact. My other point was that the bombings of London was no terror bombing when compared to Dresden and Hamburg. That point also stands.

            As for your link I've read it before.

            What major city isn't a major communications and transportation hub? A railway and a couple of motorways would appear to meet this definition. Which means that any major city would be a military target.

            Originally posted by RichardS View Post
            Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been debated endlessly here. For Hiroshima the city was HQ for the IJA 2nd Army and THAT ALONE makes it a legitimate target.
            Does having a rationale make it a legitimate military target? The desire to actionable intelligence was a "military rationale" for waterboarding. Is that enough to make it legal?

            I guess the Japanese forces must have been spread out all over the city, as such nuking the entire city indiscriminately with civilians and all became both necessary and was rightfully justified, the entire city had become a military target. This leaves us with Nagasaki then… another military target I guess.


            Note to self: People truly get worked up in this place.
            Last edited by walle; 09 Apr 13, 18:46.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by walle View Post

              My point was that the bombings of London was retaliation for the bombings of Berlin. And that is a fact. My other point was that the bombings of London was no terror bombing when compared to Dresden and Hamburg. That point also stands.
              Now you are just regurgitated Goebbels propaganda. The Luftwaffe was losing pilots and airplanes over the airfields of southeast England (a part of Britain ) at as loss ratio of between 2 or 3 to one, depending on the date. The Spitfires were dominating the 109s. the 110s were utter failures at protecting the bombers, the Stukas were being massacred, and the Ju-88 was not living up to its advanced billing. being too slow and poorly armed to be able to defend itself.


              having a rationale make it a legitimate military target? ?
              Yes
              Will no one tell me what she sings?--
              Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
              For old, unhappy, far-off things,
              And battles long ago:
              -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by walle View Post
                With England out of the equation the English would have been finished, and with England out of the equation there would have been no foothold in Europe for the Americans to establish a forward base. It would also have bought Germany the time they needed to keep working on their military-tech. As for Russia they could have beaten them, but Hitler's interference of military decisions made sure it never happened. Another point to raise, as far as the eastern front goes, is that the Ukrainians approached the Germans wanting to ally themselves with Germany in war against Russia. But National Socialists (read: Nazi cadre/party members) Racial views made them decline the offer.

                As for the United States beating Germany in case they had taken England out of the equation whilst beating Russia? I don't think so. The Germans were soooo far ahead of everyone else when it came to military-tech (even though Hitler hampered this too with his interference) and with German factories not being bombed they would have been able to focus on production without any interruptions.

                There are researchers who suggest that if Albert Speer hadn't interfered Germany would have had the A Bomb in 1945, but apparently he thought the war would be won much sooner, and in Germanys favour, so not enough resources was invested.

                Lastly, no need to be aggressive and seek argumentation when people state what they believe to be the biggest blunders made by Hitler.

                Take a chill pill...mein Führer.

                Cheers
                Eric.
                Wow...what a load of unsupported drivel.

                I only seek the truth about the historical events as they actually unfolded.

                We have a section here called "alternate timelines". It is chock full of discussions about the "paths not taken" and the reasons why.
                You demonstrate little understanding of the backstory regarding "Hitler's War". Moreso? You are spouting a collection of common misconceptions that have been disproved by serious scholars and you provide nothing to support your opinions. If you were willing to pull your head out of "the sand " and do a bit more reading through the thread archive on this site, you'd find every one of your viewpoints soundly countered by people with a far better understanding of the extant situation.
                You're swimming in the "deep end of the pool" my friend and someone is going to come along and pop your "waterwings" before long.

                I don't have such an inclination. "Fanbois" come and go on a regular basis. The odd one will actually STFU, read/learn, and come back as a valuable contributor.

                By the by? You still haven't elaborated on your plan to take "England" out of the war in the Summer of 1940. See my post to Scott Fraser about Dunkerque; read Sebag-Montefiore's work on the subject and get back to me....this is what I'm talking about. You haven't got the slightest clue about the recorded history; why should anyone take you seriously?.

                Welcome to ACG
                48 trips 'round the sun on this sh*tball we call home...and still learning...
                __________________________________________________ __________________

                Comment


                • Originally posted by walle View Post
                  No one's comparing warcrimes. Relax. As for crimes against humanity that is what war is. I let you think about that one for a while.
                  War is one thing. Genocide is another. YOU think about that.


                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  My point was that the bombings of London was retaliation for the bombings of Berlin. And that is a fact. My other point was that the bombings of London was no terror bombing when compared to Dresden and Hamburg. That point also stands.
                  So let the Nazi sympathizers stop boohooing for Hamburg and Dresden. Just keep reminding yourself . . .who started the war. Who started bombing cities first?

                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  As for your link I've read it before.
                  You may have read, but you obviously failed to comprehend it.

                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  What major city isn't a major communications and transportation hub? A railway and a couple of motorways would appear to meet this definition. Which means that any major city would be a military target.
                  Any DEFENDED city is a target. But Dresden was more than just a transportation hub. To wit it had a poison gas factory, an AA & field gun factory, Zeiss optical works, small arms manufactory, etc. Also Dresden had at a military barracks, hutted camps and at least one muntions dump. All that and AA defenses made it a legitimate target.

                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  Does having a rationale make it a legitimate military target? The desire to actionable intelligence was a "military rationale" for waterboarding. Is that enough to make it legal?
                  Yes and no. Torture is never legal no matter who does it.

                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  I guess the Japanese forces must have been spread out all over the city, as such nuking the entire city indiscriminately with civilians and all became both necessary and was rightfully justified, the entire city had become a military target. This leaves us with Nagasaki then… another military target I guess.
                  That's what A-bombs do. But get off your small horse and remember that NOBODY, repeat NOBODY, understood the long term effects of a nuclear bomb. But since you asked.

                  Originally posted by Wikipdia
                  The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry.
                  Sounds very military to me. But I noticed you completely overlooked the fact that Japan was given a chance to surrender after Hiroshima, but didn't take it.

                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  Note to self: People truly get worked up in this place.
                  Yes, when people come in and start spouting moral equivalencies we do. At best it is a misguided notion; at worst it is an attempt at white washing the atrocities committed on a massive, organized scale by the Axis.
                  Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                  "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                  What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by iron View Post
                    You are spouting a collection of common misconceptions that have been disproved by serious scholars.
                    What part?

                    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                    War is one thing. Genocide is another. YOU think about that.
                    In war there can be both genocide and ethnic cleansing, history is full of it. That said, what did I write which prompted this response? Was it: war is a crime against humanity? I maintain that it is.

                    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                    So let the Nazi sympathizers stop boohooing for Hamburg and Dresden. Just keep reminding yourself . . .who started the war. Who started bombing cities first?
                    I'm not sure what you’re driving at exactly, care to explain?

                    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                    You may have read, but you obviously failed to comprehend it.
                    Not at all, by the time the city was bombed Germany had already lost the war, at that stage Dresden was of no military importance.

                    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                    That's what A-bombs do. But get off your small horse and remember that NOBODY, repeat NOBODY, understood the long term effects of a nuclear bomb. But since you asked.
                    I haven’t been talking about the long term effects, I was thinking more about the level of destruction and amount of civilians killed, bad enough I suppose.

                    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                    Yes, when people come in and start spouting moral equivalencies we do.
                    I will make sure to let you know when someone does that, so far so good though.
                    Last edited by walle; 10 Apr 13, 07:02.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by walle View Post
                      Not at all, by the time the city was bombed Germany had already lost the war, at that stage Dresden was of no military importance.
                      Germany had lost the war by 1942, 1943 at the latest, but fighting still went on until spring '45.
                      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by walle View Post
                        Not at all, by the time the city was bombed Germany had already lost the war, at that stage Dresden was of no military importance.
                        Dresden was bombed between the 13th and 15th of February 1945. It's interesting to note that the last V2 attack, an even more indiscriminate method of attack than conventional bombing, was launched on March 27 1945. If Germany had already lost the war, why was it still launching V2s? Or better yet why didn't they surrender and halt the bombing campaign?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by walle View Post
                          In war there can be both genocide and ethnic cleansing, history is full of it. That said, what did I write which prompted this response? Was it: war is a crime against humanity? I maintain that it is.
                          You'd be surprised at the number of people who come here boohooing about Hamburg, Dresden, etc. and yet convientantly overlook Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, etc.

                          Originally posted by walle View Post
                          I'm not sure what you’re driving at exactly, care to explain?
                          Hamburg, Dresden, etc. would not have happened if the Nazis didn't start WWII in Europe. Simple concept no? Don't want your cities flattened? Don't start a war.

                          Originally posted by walle View Post

                          Not at all, by the time the city was bombed Germany had already lost the war, at that stage Dresden was of no military importance.
                          Rubbish. Explain to the people of Antwerp, London, etc still being attacked by the Nazis the war was over. In case you missed it: NEWS FLASH: The war is not over till the other guy surrenders.

                          Originally posted by walle View Post
                          I haven’t been talking about the long term effects, I was thinking more about the level of destruction and amount of civilians killed, bad enough I suppose.
                          Indeed. But please explain to me how the Japanese were any more deserving of grief than the people of Shanghai, Manilla, Singapore, etc. etc.?

                          Originally posted by walle View Post
                          I will make sure to let you know when someone does that, so far so good though.
                          Fair enough. But I'll leave you a nice graph to look at and then maybe you can understand why I take a very dim view of people trying to spout moral equivalencies.

                          Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                          "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                          What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                            Hamburg, Dresden, etc. would not have happened if the Nazis didn't start WWII in Europe. Simple concept no? Don't want your cities flattened? Don't start a war.
                            I'm sorry but I don't see where you're coming from or what actually prompted you initially response in the first place, it's almost as if you're responding to something which I would have disputed, and I don't know what that would be.

                            Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                            The war is not over till the other guy surrenders.
                            I never said the war was over, I said the war was lost for Germany, and at the time of the bombings Dresden was of no military importance. This would then mean that the destruction of Dresden was unnecessary, since it no longer was of military importance.

                            Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                            Indeed. But please explain to me how the Japanese were any more deserving of grief than the people of Shanghai, Manilla, Singapore, etc. etc.? .
                            And here we go again, where did that come from?
                            Last edited by walle; 09 Apr 13, 22:35.

                            Comment


                            • London being bombed in retaliation for British bombing of Berlin is NAZI propaganda. It is actually the other way around, London was bombed first, Churchill retaliated, Germans claimed that London was bombed by accident, which if it was indeed the case, they would have/should have refrained from bombing London SEVENTY ONE TIMES during the Blitz.
                              Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                              Prayers.

                              BoRG

                              http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by walle View Post
                                I never said the war was over, I said the war was lost for Germany, and at the time of the bombings Dresden was of no military importance. This would then mean that the destruction of Dresden was unnecessary, since it no longer was of military importance.
                                Not so. The factories were still in operation and the German reinforcements were flowing through Dresden eastward toward the Soviets' offensive.

                                And as for your Nagasaki example, a trainload of Mitsubishi factory workers that survived Hiroshima was near the outskirt of Nagasaki when that second mushroom cloud they ever saw dominated the sky. The Japanese was still intending to fight.
                                Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                                Prayers.

                                BoRG

                                http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X